[Internal-cg] Timing of ICG/CCWG proposals

[joseph alhadeff]

Yes the question boils down to issues of whether names dependencies may 
be impacted by the CCWG accountability controversy and its resolution...

On 10/16/2015 2:43 AM, WUKnoben wrote:
> I'm not that sure that "nothing within the CCWG process will have a 
> substantial impact on the ICG proposal". Under 1106 the proposal says:
> "The CWG-Stewardship proposal is significantly dependent and expressly 
> conditioned on the implementation of ICANN-level accountability 
> mechanisms by the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN 
> Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) as described below. The co-chairs 
> of the CWG-Stewardship and the CCWG-Accountability have coordinated 
> their efforts and the CWG-Stewardship is confident that the 
> CCWG-Accountability recommendations, if implemented as envisaged, will 
> meet the requirements that the CWG-Stewardship has previously 
> communicated to the CCWG. If any element of these ICANN level 
> accountability mechanisms is not implemented as contemplated by the 
> CWG-Stewardship proposal, this CWG-Stewardship proposal will require 
> revision.”
> In other words the combined proposal itself may need to be revised 
> which may be an ICG task.
> I therefore wonder whether it is expedient sending the proposal before 
> a certain level of assurance is reached that the CCWG can find 
> agreement. The meeting in Dublin will be a touchstone.
> Best regards
> Wolf-Ulrich
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> From: Paul Wilson
> Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 6:55 AM
> To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
> Subject: [Internal-cg] Timing of ICG/CCWG proposals
> Hi all,
> My understanding is that we have a timing problem with the CCWG process
> if another full public comment cycle is needed before completion of the
> accountability proposal, and if we wait for that before we submit to
> ICANN/NTIA.  If that’s the case, do we have a solution for this?
> I hope that the ICG proposal can be finalised and submitted in any case,
> before the CCWG completes.  If so, then when the CCWG does complete, it
> is only necessary for the 3 communities (primarily CWG) to confirm that
> the final accountability solution is acceptable to them, and for that to
> be conveyed formally to all concerned.
> As far as I’m aware, nothing within the CCWG process will have a
> substantial impact on the ICG proposal;  the only issue is that the CCWG
> proposal must be acceptable, before the ICG proposal can be finally
> accepted and approved by NTIA.  Therefore we can parallelise these
> processes to avoid breaking our overall timelines.
> Does this work, or have I missed something?
> Paul.
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC                        dg at apnic.net
> http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20151016/47e1f396/attachment.html>